I am not sure I understand what you try to say correctly. Do you mind to rephrase?


It is on the "help" section of their site, which host several useful articles like ToS, PF, fees they charge, 2FA, and responsible gaming as one of them. Having them displayed on the same "page" as ToS does not instantly translates it as part of their policy, much like how their 2FA sub-page does not necessarily means Google Authenticator is part of their policy. I hope you can understand these differences.



And on the screenshot you provided [uploaded right above], I can't actually see they confirm that it is part of their ToS. Perhaps you provided a wrong screenshot?


It does, point 4.8. on their ToS,




To be fair and to clarify, I am currently not pressuring anyone. Neither you nor BC. I am simply inquiring to know more and straighten some facts or clarify things. BC's process of answering my questions just happen to be happening through a direct communication with their representative. Yes, for those who follows my line of questioning, they'll be familiar with my preference, that I always urge communication to happen publicly here on the forum instead of privately through PM or DM.

However, it seems BC has concluded this case with their last post here, and I believe I am not the only one who think they have the right to do so, as their latest explanation actually explains about your situation quite nicely. In other words, your case can actually be ruled as resolved, however as you're still inquiring more, I am more than happy to help overseeing it, and thus I tried to get BC's answer from other source, which I believe they provided as a gesture of good will and maintain their honesty with me.

If you prefer me to stop trying to reach BC through DM, kindly inform me so, and I'll refrain from chasing this case any further by asking them some details. Whether they will come and answer here themselves after that, though, I can't guarantee that.


I understand that I will extremely sound biased with my answer addressing above points, but rest assured that I am not taking their side, nor yours. I am simply stating what I believe happened from the evidences [statements, screenshots, etc.] gathered so far.

Yes, they closed your account as soon as they found about your condition, this is true, although it need a slight correction. They became aware of your situation by 29th of February, when they DMed you but they did not close your account right away. They attempted an alternative way, offering you a "bribe" [if I may use that word casually] in hope they can "trap" you into exclusion without placing your state of mind in enough stress in concern of you having a relapse and succumbed to your addiction by playing in other casino. Upon understanding that they can't pursue this path, they take a more direct method by asking you to exclude yourself, and later on banning you themselves when you did not heeding their subtle request. So yes, they close your account as soon as they found out about your mental condition, but they tried to do it in a compassionate way.

I think this is actually a very positive attitude of BC and, to be honest, I am surprised that a representative can think of a very delicate approach and having a gambler's state of mind to their consideration when they attempted to exclude the user for addiction. This is the first time I evidenced such approach, as usually a casino will just ban right away.

Unless I understand things and read evidences this far wrongly, I think all of the explanation and screenshots actually lead to this conclusion above. And yes, though I, and AHOYBRAUSE, mentioned about your situation on this thread far before 29th of February, their representative has explained that they did not read those posts when it's made. The situation of your condition only came to their awareness around the time they attempted that "bribe". It is very a common occurance that a representative did not notice a post or two, or even a whole thread. I usually have to send a casino representative a PM notifying them and inviting them to give their side of an accusation just to brought it to their representative's awareness, just so you can get a better picture of how a post can be missed.

As I said earlier, I can understand that I will sound extremely biased, because my sentence above looks like I heavily leaning towards and favoring BC, but I am assuring you again that the statement above was made from what I believe happened, gathered from everything provided up to this point. You are more than free to point out where I understand wrongly.